articles

nie wiem, nie czytalem od poczatku tego watku ale wydaje mi sie engee ma jakas szczegolna 'agenda' tutaj.

@engee
Czy naprawde muslisz ze w tamtym watlu co podales mg nie widzial o czym pozniej mu wytkales?
What are you moron?:)

wiem, ze wiedzial - stad moj komentarz

wait, no you're doing an about-face on this. If you know that he knew, what was the point of your picking up on this now?

He knew what exactly I was pointing out to him, he didn't know though that he made a mistake leaving that comment of his

I'm nobody's phucking lawyer but no, you're just a twister and those in the know know about it.

I guess you're right

oh yeah, you got that right because I'm always right

I don't mean to repeat myself, but - yes, I guess you're right, as always

good but don't think flattery will get you everywhere because I'm still a fat-ugly cranky limping mean-machine:))

p.s. ok, Im not that fat

it's not flattery, it was twisting the truth - like you said earlier, I'm the perfect twister :P

yes, but I also used another noun, scroll up:)

no, we both know you didn't mean that, did you

of course I did, what am I some kind of liberal leftwing schmuck:)

chyba żartujesz. mamy zawsze przepisywać cały rozdział z podręcznika gramatyki? Uczyłeś kiedyś różnicy między who i which na lekcji i od razu wprowadzałeś konstrulcje typu which is yours? Masz ostatnio jakiś problem.

nie caly rozdzial, ale przynajmniej nie pisac rzeczy, ktore nie sa do konca poprawne

Czyli pisac wszystko, bo jezeli nie napisze wszystkiego, to uznasz to za niepoprawne. Na jakim Ty swiecie zyjesz?

temat dotyczyl zaimka badz okreslinka which
ty napisales, ze which wystapic moze tylko z rzeczownikiem
prosty blad, juz go wyjasnilismy
po co drazyc ten temat w nieskonczonosc

Po to, zebys zrozumial, jak bardzo bladzisz.
jak poprawisz kogos, kto napisal 'a boys'?
'przed liczba mnoga nie stawia sie a/an' cz 'przed liczba mnoga stawia sie a/an tylko w pewnych wyrazeniach dotyczacych miar'.
Alez oczywisxcie, ze wybierzesz drugie wyjasnienie, bo pierwsze zawiera prosty blad. Tyle ze robisz uczniom wode z mozgu.
Kiedys lepiej pisales o jezyku, a teraz uwazasz, ze trzeba podawac wszystkie mozliwe regulki od razu. Mam nadzieje, ze nikogo nie uczysz.

Na temat 'the regular ones' juz nie chcesz rozmawiac.

coz, kiedys mieszkalem w Polsce i mialem 'ksiazkowe' podejscie do angielskiego, podobne do twojego (na pewno juz zdazyles zauwazyc)
teraz nie wyobrazam sobie uczenia kogos tymi samymi zasadami, co dawniej - tutaj jezyk jest eksponowany na 100%, RP, slogan czy dialekty, mix, ktory sprawia, ze zmieniasz zdanie odnosnie wielu kwestii podawanych w podrecznikach do nauki angielskiego

I can't help it, the way I think and see things nowadays

>>coz, kiedys mieszkalem w Polsce i mialem 'ksiazkowe' podejscie do angielskiego,

a teraz jestes big shot bo nie mieszkasz?
wlasnie twoje podejscie wydaje mie sie byc nienaturalne

nie wiem, big shot to raczej nie jestem
ale na pewno mam inne podejscie do wszystkiego, co wczesniej poznalem

no dobrze, niech ci tam bedzie najlepiej
nie musimy sobie z tego powodu skakac do gardel ze ty tam mieszkasz

nie zarzucaj niekompetencji tylko innym ludzia tylko z powodu tego ze tam mieszkasz

Ty teraz masz ksiazkowe podejscie, cytujesz cale rozdzialy

When you are comparing regular vs. sweet potatoes, there is no need to say 'THE regular potatoes' in the plural. 'Regular potatoes' will do.

I said that “THE regular potatoes” is a specific reference, not generic.
No need to preach to the choir.

Hence, the sentence from the original posting is probably not about regular vs. sweet potatoes.

Who says it is? I just gave you an example of a classic generic statement using two definite singulars the sweet potato and the regular potato. In this example regular means nonsweet.


It is also quite far-fetched to say that it is about 'ALL new potatoes' vs. specific regular potatoes.

It is not fat-fetched at all.
“New potatoes” generalizes and therefore it is a generic reference.That’s what generic reference a kind means.
“THE regular potatoes” does not generalize and it is not a generic reference; this reference is specific. There is no other possible type of reference left for it.

“New potatoes taste better than regular potatoes” would be a generic statement. Here regular acquires the sense of older/mature.

No, the entire statement is not generic, and nothing "outweighs" all that.
Husband to wife: Young potatoes (generic reference) taste better than the regular ones that you usually buy (specific reference).

And how was that related to the original sentence? What were you trying to prove?

Anyway I can see that your reading of the original sentence is the same as mine.

So it does. The point being made is that you can mix general and specific references.

so New potatoes always seem to taste better than regular potatoes is correct?

The original statement New potatoes always seem to taste better than regular ones was out of context, it was just a sample sentence showing a use of the word "new" and I thought that there was no need to mix the references whatsoever. This kind of general statement could be made by anyone in the world depending on their preferences, after all.

which has nothing to do with what you made of the original sentence.

'New potatoes always taste better than the regular one' is not the same as 'regular potatoes always taste better than the new ones'
The reference is different